9 10. Thou shal observe to do according to all that they inform thee according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee Learned Rivet in Cathol Orthod tract 1. q. 8. observes the place to be thus sensed by famous Authors in the Romish Church by Cajetan the Author of the Glossa Ordinaria Lyranus and Hierom Oleastrius and that Lyranus from the restriction according to the Law refutes that absurd gloss of the Jewish Rabbins that if the Judge should say that the right hand were the left and the left hand the right talis sententia est tenenda like to which is that forecited saying of Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif cap. 5. If the Pope command Vice and prohibit Vertue the Church were bound to believe Vice to be good and Vertue evil But we have not so learned Christ the Judge was to give sentence according to the Law or as Ezek 44.24 According to the Judgments of the Lord. I am not ignorant of the ordinary Cavil of Romanists that then the people were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim whether it were according to the Law I distinguish They were to judge of the sentence of the Sanedrim by an Authoritative Judgment it does not follow by a judgment of discretion in order to their own practise I grant This Romanists cannot deny unless they would devest the people of Reason and turn them into Bruits When Romish Missionaries labour to Proselite people to the Romish perswasion do they not labour to convince them that it 's more rational to believe their Church than to adhere to the Religion of Protestants Is not this to grant them a judgment of discretion How then can they condemn us for that which themselves allow Excellently said Clemens Alex. Stromat lib. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I confess the Learned Grotius in loc will not have these words according to the Law to be restrictive yet he denies that from the place the infallibility of the Sanedrim can be concluded the scope of the Statute being not to enjoyn all to believe what the Sanedrim did Decree but only non contra agere non contra docere not to act or teach contrary to the sentence of the Sanedrim How warrantably he thus glosses is not my concern now to examine only it overturns the notion of infallibility But are we not commanded to hear the Church Mat. 18.17 Yes But does it therefore follow that the Church that is her Pastors assembled in a General Council cannot err in matters of Faith who would not smile at such an inference Are we not also commanded to hear not only the Catholick Church in her Oecumenick Councils but also in National or Provincial Assemblies yea and particular Pastors Luke 10.17 He that heareth you heareth me Yet Romanists I hope will not thence conclude either Provincial or National Assemblies let be particular Pastors infallible Can any Romanist prove that the Church Mat. 18.17 is only taken for a Pope or General Council Is there a Text in all the Bible where the Church signifies the Pope of Rome I appeal all the Order of Jesuits to instance it if they can Doth not the word Church in this Scripture comprehend all those Churches which cognosce of effences if therefore that Scripture furnish one argument for infallibility then the particular Churches of Scotland and England might claim infallibility as well as Rome Is it not evident from that context Mat. 18.17 that there we are commanded to hear and obey the Church in her Censures and yet Romanists cannot deny but in her Censures she may err and proceed clave errante because in her decisions of that kind she depends on humane testimony See Lombard lib. 4. sent dist 18. it 's manifest therefore nothing can be concluded thence as to infallibility But how then are we commanded to hear the Church Answ In so far as she adheres to her Commission the Rule of Gods Word and thus she cannot deceive us if she or an Angel from Heaven go beyond that Rule they are not to be heard Gal. 1.8 Yet lastly Giving and not granting that a General Council could not err what 's that to the Pope and his Schismatical Conventicles which have no more of a General Council praeter nomen inane But Matth. 16.18 The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church I ask what Church if the invisible of the Elect then it touches not the question in hand concerning a visible Judge if the Catholick visible Church in her diffusive capacity then it 's yet from the purpose for as such she exercises no Juridical Power if the Catholick visible in her Representatives then he might as well conclude her impeccability as her inerrability for the Devil prevails over Souls by sins of practise as well as by errours in judgment But it 's confessed by all that impeccability of Councils cannot be concluded therefore neither inerrability I must remember him that his Fellow Jesuit Tirin as cited by Maresius controv 5. num 3. says it 's uncertain whether the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against which should be construed with the Rock or with the Church if it relate to the Rock then the words only affirm that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Rock upon which the Church is built which as Austin and many other Fathers expound is Christ himself yet granting that it were here said that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against the Church how can it be proved that when the Pope or the major part of a General Council is smitten with a lesser Doctrinal errour that the Gates of Hell prevails against the Church Hath he not heard the distinction that albeit in such a case the Gates of Hell valent yet non prevalent they hurt the Church but do not wholly overthrow the Church To conclude all that I suppose can be inferred from that Scripture is that the whole Catholick visible Church shall not err in Fundamentals Indeed if the whole diffusive did err in Fundamentals the Gates of Hell should prevail then the Church should be extinguished But to prove the inerrability of the Pope and his Council from this Scripture the Pamphleter may improve all the assistance Rome can give him in his next Reply But hath not Christ promised to his Church Mat. 28.20 Loe I am with you to the end of the world Answ If every one be infallible who have a promise that God will be with them then every Believer may claim infallibility because of the promise Joh. 14.23 Is the presence and assistance of Christ with every one in the same measure and degree wherein it was to be with the Apostles Is not the promise of the presence of Christ Mat. 28.20 conditionel Doth he not say Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and then Loe in so doing I am with you to the end of the world Hath not then the Church of Rome forfeited her
expresly declared that the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ non proprie in rei veritate not properly sed significante mysterio but by a mystical signification because the Sacramental bread doth truly represent the body of Christ Yea have not Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Forbes Instruct Hist Theolog. lib. 11. cap. 9 10 11. c. And Moulin de Novitate Papismi demonstrated that the current of Antiquity is for us in this matter what a world of interminable debates hath this figment of Transubstantiation raised among their own men So that hither may the lines be applyed Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Deque modo lis est non habitura modum But leaving these and such like grounds of Arguments against this bloody Doctrine of Transubstantiation for which Papists have shed the blood of many thousands of Protestants I come to examine the Argument which this Pamphleter so much undervalues And first I must remember him of one branch of the Argument which he hath not touched which he will find in pag. 129. what Christ took in his hands what he did break and bless that he gave to his Disciples and affirm'd to be his body but it was bread which he took into his hands which he did break and bless Ergo It was bread which he gave and affirmed to be his body Now all know and Bell. doth acknowledge it that the body of Christ cannot be predicated of bread Consequently the proposition must be figurative both the premises are clear in the Series of the context ought not this Jesuit either to have been more sparing in boasting or else more through in examining the Argument Next I come to try how solidly he hath behaved himself in what he hath touched I assetted indeed pap 7. p. 127. that these words of Christ This is my body according to the Romish gloss would be inexplicable false and imply a contradiction and consequently their gloss could not be genuine I am so far from being removed from my judgment by reading this Pamphlet that the shallowness of his Answers do the more confirm me And first I said it was inexplicable and therefore desired Mr. Demster to let me know what Christ meant by hoc this for if he meant either the bread or the accidents of bread the sence must be figurative for these are not in a proper sence the body of Christ And by hoc this Christ could not mean his own body it not being yet present when hoc this was pronounced Nor could he mean Eus in confuso individuum vagum or contentum sub speciebus that is something under the accidents of bread Christ himself knew not what which are the desperate shifts of Schoolmen This I say cannot be the meaning unless they come to that height of Blasphemy to affirm that Christ's understanding was clouded with confusions so that he knew not himself what he meant by hoc this To all this he answers pag. 112 113. That hoc this signifyed nothing determinately until the last word or predicate my Body was pronounced A noble Solution for sooth and worthy of the acumen of a Jesuit Doth he not by saying that when Christ pronounced this it signifyed nothing at all determinately confirm what I say that their gloss renders the proposition of Christ inexplicable for I can put no other gloss upon the words of this Pamphleter but that neither the Apostles nor yet Christ himself understood what hoc signified when it was first uttered it signifyed nothing determinately then it would appear it signifyed something but indeterminately what can this be but the individuum vagum that others talk of that is in plain Scots something but Christ himself knew not what Was the mind of our Saviour in whom are all treasures of wisdom and knowledge so clouded Though it were granted that the hearer could not understand so distinctly what were meant by hoc this until the predicate whole proposition were uttered yet sure at the 1st utering of the subject hoc the speaker himself knows as perfectly what he means by it as when the whole proposition is uttered Now the question betwixt Romanists and us is what Christ who was the speaker understood by this when he uttered it Sure it could be nothing but that which he had in his hand at the present but at the present he had nothing in his hand but real bread for the body of Christ was not substituted in the place of bread according to the principles of Transubstantiators ergo hoc this could signifie nothing but bread and that determinately and consequently the proposition must be figurative Suppose a man holding out a piece of Gold to another should say this is a Jacobus who could deny but by this at the first pronunciation thereof he did understand the piece of Gold whether he or I do quibble concerning this matter others may judge I added Secondly pag. 128. that according to the Popish gloss this proposition of Christ's were both false and should imply a manifest contradiction This I confirmed two wayes First because a true affirmative proposition de prasenti cannot produce its own object else in that instant of Nature wherein the proposition is conceived before its object as the cause before its effect the proposition should be true as is supposed and not true because the object in that instant is not Secondly because at least in that instant of time wherein the copula of an affirmative proposition de praesenti is enunciated the object ought to exist But according to Transubstantiators in that instant of time wherein Christ pronounced the copula of this proposition This is my body Christ's body was not in the Sacrament and therefore the proposition in the sense of Transubstantiators must be false This Argument he first retorts pag. 113. Alleadging that this other affirmative proposition of Christ de praesenti Joh. 15. This is my command that ye love one another doth produce its own object and pag. 115. he adds many more viz. let the light be made let the firmament be made young man I say unto thee arise I will be thou healed I wonder that with these words of God fiat coelum he did not joyn these of the Pope Esto Cardinalis whereby his Holiness like another Deity by two words of a kind of non ens creates a Cardinal Yet I must take leave to tell him that in none of these examples is there an instance of an affirmative proposition de praesenti producing its object meer imperative words such as fiat lux let there be light and the rest mentioned pag. 115. are no affirmative propositions but meer commands Doth God affirm every thing to be which he commands to be What a Jesuite and not able to distinguish betwixt one affirmative proposition and a word of command If any of his instances seem to be to the purpose it 's that Joh. 15. This is my command that ye
discover the corruptions of that Apostatized Church and convey down orders to Ministers who by vertue of their Ordination were authorized and obliged to endeavour the Reformation of the Church Fourthly that our Reformers did not set up a new Church but did reform the old Apostatized Church so that there needed no new Ordination or immediate Call but only faithfully to improve the power given them in their Ordination to shake off and witness against the corruptions of that lapsed Church And fifthly and lastly this must be added though Ordination was clogged with corruptions at the time when our Reformers received Ordination in the Church of Rome yet was not Ordination in the Romish Church by far so corrupt as now it is for then Pope Pius the Fourth his impious Oath which he imposed upon all persons to be Ordained was not contrived By all this I hope it may appear that our Reformers Ordination was valid though received by Romish Ministers and yet the Romish Party not vindicated from Antichristianism It 's further objected that Protestants look upon Romanists as Hereticks and consequently ought to look upon Ordination from them as null Answ That sequel is null Do not Romanists maintain that Orders imprint an indeleble character on the Soul which neither Schism nor Heresie can extinguish and that Sacraments conferred by Hereticks are valid and particularly of this Sacrament of Orders Jesuit Connick Tom. 2. de Sacram. disp 20. dub 9. Num. 84. concludes Certum omnino est Episcopum Excommunicatum Haereticum degradatum validè conferre ordines i. e. It is altogether certain that Orders conferred by a Bishop Excommunicated Heretical and degraded are valid And though Protestants acknowledge no such Sacramental character impressed on the Soul yet they affirm that by Ordination a power is conferred which is not utterly made void by every Schism or Heresie so that though Schismaticks or Hereticks act irregularly in ordaining yet Orders conferred by them are not null and void Neither are they whom Schismaticks or Hereticks ordain bound in conscience to propagate the Schism or Heresies of those who ordained them yea by relinquishing the Schism and Heresies of their Ordainers what irregularity was in their Ordination is supplied and they come into a capacity of conferring Orders regularly which their Ordainers abiding in Schism or Heresie could not do Hence it apparently follows that though Romanists be both Schismatical and Heretical and act irregularly in conferring Orders yet the Orders conferred by them to our Reformers were not only valid but also the Reformers by relinquishing the Heretical Doctrines and Schismatical principles and practices of the Church of Rome and by owning the Catholick Truths oppugned by Romanists had the defects and irregularity of their Ordination supplied Thus Romanists themselves answer concerning the Bishops whom they own who had been ordained by Cranmer in the time of Schism as they call it saying they attained the regular use of their Orders by returning from Schism and Heresie in Queen Mary's time when they were reconciled to the Church of Rome they ought not then offend at us for making use of the same Reply to them I shut up this Answer to this Objection with that saying of S. Austin Epist 165. Et si quisquam traditor subrepsisset albeit some Traytor had crept into the Church he means the Roman in which too too many Judasses have been seen since that time nihil praejudicaret Ecclesiae aut Innocentibus Christianis it should nothing prejudice the Church or Innocent Christians From pag. 203. to 207. he breaks forth into a Flood of Thrasonick Clamours as void of truth as of sobriety as if Protestants acknowledged the Popish Church to be the most Ancient Church and ever to have possessed the greatest part of the Christian World converting Nations working Miracles and that the Church before Luther should have been destitute of the true Letter and sense of Scripture and thereupon vainly misapplys to the Romish Church that word of Tertull. Olim possideo prior possideo The falshood of all these hath been already as copiously demonstrated as the nature of this Tractate would permit And particularly it hath been shewed that one of our great Exceptions against the Popish Church is her Novelty under a Mask of falsly pretended Antiquity That the Complex of their Trent Religion is latter than Luther and that the truly Catholick Church continued in all Ages having both the Letter and sense of holy Scripture and Substantials of Faith maintaining the same Religion which the Reformed Churches do to this day consequently the Reformed Churches are truly a part of that Catholick Church from which Romanists do Schismatically separate themselves Though Romanists had more Antiquity than they have yet that of Tertull. lib. de Veland Virg. Cap. 1. might stop their mouths Nec veritati praescribere potest Spatium temporum vel patrocinia personarum vel privilegia Regionum Neither length of time nor Patrociny of persons nor priviledges of Countries can prescribe against Truth SECT V. A Brief Reparty to his Conclusory Knacks THe vain Knacks where with he shuts up his Treatise pag. 207 208. are solidly confuted to my hand by Learned and Judicious Mr. Rait in his Vindication of the Protestant Religion pag. 268. for with the same froathy talk his Adversary also had concluded his Scriblings It shall be enough therefore to me to make this Retorsion on Romanists They have Faith without Verity Unity of Interest without Unity of Judgment a Catholick Church without Catholicism excluding the greatest part of Christendom an Infallible Judge defining contradictions and make the Divine Law a Nose of Wax a Church with many Heads Altars and Sacrifices without Divine Institution a Propitiatory Sacrifice without shedding of blood yea without a sacrificing act Image-worship Bread-worship Cross-worship Relick-worship Saint-worship if they may be believed without Idolatry Sacraments without visible Elements Sacraments so far from sanctifying that their most Religious persons are obliged to vow abstinence from them Specters of accidents without a subject they eat and devour their God they have devotion without understanding performing holy things in an unknown Language they have Pastors without Preaching Communion without Communicants they maintain a sinless perfection yet teach manifest violations of the Law of God they cannot only merit Heaven by their works but also supererrogate yet in many things they offend all the Satisfaction of Christ according to them needs a supply of penal satisfactions either in this life or in Purgatory the Efficacy of Grace depends on the beck of Free-will and Eternal Election must be founded on the prescience of mens good works Popes have Apostolical Function but no immediate Mission nor speak they with Tongues c. they obtrude lying signs and wonders yea ridiculous Fables for real Miracles the Enthusiasms of their Popes for Divine Oracles and bundles of Novelties under the Vizour of Antiquity many Books they hold for Canonical Scripture which neither the Jewish nor